DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 4/9/26 is acknowledged. Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 25, the term “VALE” is used when it appears that --VALVE-- should be used instead. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 11, insert --a-- in front of “flow conduit.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beattie (WO 96/00329).
Regarding claim 1, Beattie shows a dynamic siphon assembly (fig. 1) for draining fluid from a cistern (p. 1, summary) comprising: a dynamic siphon (12), and a flush actuation assembly (112, 114) ; wherein the dynamic siphon comprises an air trap (air gap of 48 between inner and outer chambers 14, 16) configured to cause the dynamic siphon to float (p. 4, ln. 29; p. 8, ln. 21-22) within a cistern at least partially filled with a fluid (line F-F, fig. 1); wherein the flush actuation assembly is configured to push the dynamic siphon down within the cistern (p. 8, ln. 23 - 28); wherein the flush actuation assembly pushing the dynamic siphon down is configured to initiate a siphonic action within the dynamic siphon (p. 8, ln. 23-28); wherein the siphonic action is configured to draw the fluid through a flow conduit to an exit conduit (see annotated figure below) thereby reducing a fluid level within the cistern (p. 9, ln. 1-6); and wherein the dynamic siphon is configured to continue to draw the fluid until the flow conduit is exposed to a gas (p. 9, ln. 7-9, 31-34).
Regarding claim 2, Beattie further shows a fluid trap (portion of 14 below 48 at water level F-F) configured to hold a volume of fluid and the air trap is configured to be formed by trapping the gas between a fluid in the trap and fluid outside of the trap (water in the cistern up to level F-F)(p. 8, ln. 21-22)
Regarding claim 3, Beattie further provides that pushing the dynamic siphon down is configured to remove the gas from the air trap (p. 8, ln. 28-30).
Regarding claim 4, Beattie further shows that the air trap is configured to trap gas during a fluid filling of the cistern (p. 9, ln. 13-15).
Regarding claim 5, Beattie further shows that the siphon comprises a fluid overflow (39) connected to the flow conduit and the flush actuation assembly is configured to initiate the flow by moving the overflow below a fluid line (F-F) within the cistern (p. 8, ln. 23-28)(fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Beattie further shows wherein the dynamic siphon is configured to be held in a lowered position by the siphonic action until the flow conduit is exposed to a gas. (p. 9, ln. 7-9; p. 9, ln.31 - p 10, ln.2 ).
Regarding claim 7, Beattie further shows a static frame (40) configured to guide (see progression between fig. 1 and fig. 2) a motion of the siphon and configured to be coupled to a cistern outlet (42).
Regarding claim 8, Beattie further shows a fluid trap (portion of 14 below 48 at water level F-F) configured to hold a volume of fluid and the air trap is configured to be formed by trapping the gas between a fluid in the trap and fluid outside of the trap (water in the cistern up to level F-F)(p. 8, ln. 21-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kelsall (GB 2187768).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beatie shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a siphon cone. Attention is turned to Kelsall which teaches a dynamic siphon (24)(abstract) having a siphon cone (30) which improves a flow characteristic of the fluid (p. 2, ln. 46-48) as it passes through the exit conduit (22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a siphon cone like that taught by Kelsall in the apparatus of Beattie in order to provide enhanced flushing of the cistern.
Regarding claim 12, Beattie as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not specify that the cone is between 40 and 150 mm in length. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device of Beattie as modified to perform equally well as applicant' s. It would have been obvious to have modified Beattie to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beattie, as applied to claim 1, in view of Howe (US 384,978).
Regarding claim 15, Beattie shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the siphon is configured to automatically begin siphonic action responsive to an overfill condition within the cistern resulting in the fluid level in the cistern rising above a fluid overflow in the dynamic siphon. Attention is turned to Howe, which teaches a similar dynamic siphon (3) having an open top that is configured to automatically begin siphonic action responsive to an overfill condition in the cistern resulting in the fluid level in the cistern rising above a fluid overflow in the siphon (top edge of 1)(p. 2, ln. 18-36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an overflow opening in the device of Beattie that lowers the position of the dynamic siphon responsive to an overfill condition in order to prevent flooding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights